future in the past - una pozione che l'avrebbe fatta dormire

Ciao,I have to write about the tragedy Romeo and Juliet. I have a problem about English grammarc: I don't know how can I write in English "the future in the past". I know that it sounds a bit strange..I hope you'll understand!!
I have to translate something like: Le dette una "pozione" che L'AVREBBE FATTA DORMIRE due giorni... = He gave her a ???? which ????? for two days..
giulia

Originally Posted by usa_scott
"he gave her a potion which would eventually make her sleep for two days"

We really wouldn't say it in this way.

fran06 said:

Would you say it like this?

Click to expand...

Only if it is a very slow-acting potion or if the potion is made to activate at a time significantly later than the time at which it is swallowed. This could even imply that the potion would make her sleep some number of days/weeks/months or even years later.

In my experience of performances of the play she takes the potion and falls asleep. The following are possible:

He gave her a potion which made her sleep for two days.He gave her a potion to put her to sleep for two days.

The use of would to construct the future in the past implies a delay between the taking and the falling asleep. Would could be used to express the conditional relationship between her sleeping and his decision:

He was thinking about giving her a potion which would make her sleep for two days.

In my experience of performances of the play she takes the potion and falls asleep. The following are possible:

He gave her a potion which made her sleep for two days. =Le dette una pozione che la fece dormire per due giorniHe gave her a potion to put her to sleep for two days =Le dette una pozione per farla dormire per due giorni

The use of would to construct the future in the past implies a delay between the taking and the falling asleep. Would could be used to express the conditional relationship between her sleeping and his decision:

He was thinking about giving her a potion which would make her sleep for two days.

Click to expand...

It's amazing how this (English) future in the past is disliked by anglosaxon foreros.
So to understand this mystery (why putting forth all this "he was thinking/planning and so on and so on) I ask the connected anglosaxons to tell me what they think about the following sentences.

He gave her a potion which will make her fall asleep = He has already given her a potion but she is currently not yet asleep

He gave her a potion which made her fall asleep = He has already given her a potion and she has already fallen asleep (probably, but not always, just after the adminstering of the potion)

He gave her a potion which would make her fall asleep = He has already given her a potion, and in the present time that I am telling you this, she has already fallen asleep, yet in the context of my storytelling you, she may or may not have fallen asleep yet.

Let me elaborate. If I am narrating the Romeo & Juliet story and I want to tell you some events that happened in between the time he gave her the potion and the time that she fell asleep, I would say He gave her a potion which would make her fall asleep:

He gave her a potion which would (eventually ) make her fall asleep. In the meantime, such and such happened, etc etc etc etc. Later on, she fell asleep.

If I'm not going to include any extra narration in between the adminstering of the potion and the falling asleep, I would just say:

He gave her a potion that made her fall asleep. [end of event, now moving on...] Then such and such, etc. etc,...

I should also add that the sentence He gave her a potion which would make her fall asleep adds a small hint of "intent" as well as the possibility of failure. So one could write: He gave her a potion which would (with which he intended to) make her fall asleep, but soon after drinking it, she found an antidote to stay awake!

I've just realized what sounded odd to me about the examples. Don't you normally use the present tense when describing the plot of a play/novel etc (as opposed to when you're telling a child a fairy story)? You would say Hamlet confronts Gertrude and tells her that..., wouldn't you? (rather than Hamlet confronted...)

I've just realized what sounded odd to me about the examples. Don't you normally use the present tense when describing the plot of a play/novel etc (as opposed to when you're telling a child a fairy story)? You would say Hamlet confronts Gertrude and tells her that..., wouldn't you? (rather than Hamlet confronted...)

Click to expand...

Point well-made. If you're a narrator, yes, likely. If you're merely a "storyteller" then either way would be OK.

I've just realized what sounded odd to me about the examples. Don't you normally use the present tense when describing the plot of a play/novel etc (as opposed to when you're telling a child a fairy story)? You would say Hamlet confronts Gertrude and tells her that..., wouldn't you? (rather than Hamlet confronted...)

Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good point, especially when writing a paper/report should you always speak in present tense about the play/novel. But now the "would" plot thickens...

Referring to my previous post, if you want to have the sense that the action of giving the potion as well as the effects of the potion are both completed, you say:

He gives her a potion that makes her fall asleep.

If you want to have the sense that the action of giving the potion is completed but the effects are either not yet begun or not yet completed, you say:

He gives her a potion to make her fall asleep. In the meantime, such and such happens, etc. etc. Then she falls asleep.

Here, I use "to make" as I had described in my previous post--it has the idea of "intent." To make = in order to make = for the purpose of making = with the intention of making.

You could also have a scenario in which he gives her a potion but she has not drunk it yet (and thus the effects are not yet begun). The above sentence with "to make" could imply this, or you could say:

He gives her a potion that will (whenever she should drink it) make her fall asleep.

I would not read this sentence as if he gives her the potion, she drinks it, but the effects are not begun/completed. Instead, I read this as if she has not drunk it yet. Others may disagree.

To complicate matters a bit further, these sentences only make sense with the article a preceding potion. You could also have:

He gives her the potion that would make her fall asleep, implying He gives her the one potion (the very potion she needs) that is capable of making her fall asleep...no other potions work.

Now, with this in mind, if I said He gives her a potion that would make her fall asleep, I mean that He gives her a potion from a number of possible potions capable of making her fall asleep.

The difference I see when using "would" is that it's more of a favor...as if she goes to him asking which potion(s) would make her fall asleep, and he gives her the potion, or a potion, capable of doing so. There is no "intent" on his part to make her fall asleep...it is her intent. And the difference between a and the is how many potions are capable of doing the job.

And to conclude, I should mention that in book-report writing, you would generally not see the following:

He gives her a potion that made her fall asleep. [rather nonsensical, but again, changing a to the gives He gives her the potion that made her fall asleep, meaning He presently gives her the one potion that, in the past [already completed], made her fall asleep, but now she is awake again to receive it.]

He gives her a potion that may/might make her fall asleep. [this tries to impart some uncertainty upon the person giving the potion, i.e. his uncertainty as to whether or not the potion will work...but one should say instead, He gives her a potion that he thinks will make her fall asleep]

He gives her a potion that should make her fall asleep. [tries to do the above, but is nonsense, too...use "he thinks should"]

Finally, you can have the usual conditional: He gives her a potion that would have made her fall asleep, if she had not found an antidote.

I think those are all the cases, and I apologize if I provided too many unnecessary examples in the (somewhat vane) attempt to be thorough.

When I read "Le dette una 'pozione' che L'AVREBBE FATTA DORMIRE due giorni" I spontaneously thought "he gave her a potion which would make her sleep for two days" or "he gave her a potion to make her sleep for two days."

It's amazing how this (English) future in the past is disliked by anglosaxon foreros.

Not disliked - there is simply not a clearly defined tense for it in English apart from the construction using "would". By the way I understood l'avrebbe fatta dormire as being in the perfect conditional tense - in other words it should legalistically be translated would have put her to sleep.

I believe the historical evolution of English "will" causes some confusion. Both "would" and "could" have conditional and non-conditional meanings. In describing a past event they both take on non conditional meanings unless you say could have or would have, in which case they remain conditional. that would put her to sleep is therefore non-conditional and is the future in the past, as required in this case. Shakespeare would have gone to Hawaii is conditional perfect, expressing his unfulfilled desire. So I am wondering why l'avrebbe fatta dormire was used in this Italian text of Romeo and Juliet??

Either future entirely in the past or it bridges the present ( informed in the past , leaving very soon now). For true future planning you say that he'll be leaving for Paris an hour later (than now or than some future time point referred to in the conversation)

Maybe I can clarify the difference between the two languages thus: in Italian we cannot differentiate between he said he would tell her and he said he would have told her(if she had not walked out in a huff) simply because we must use the past conditional (che glielo avrebbe detto) in both examples.

More examples:

When he said that he knew full well that his words would hurt her deeply
Here we can only say l'avrebbero ferita

I knew you would say thatSapevo che avresti detto questo

Now here's an example that shows how our inability to differentiate between would and would have (present vs past conditional) in the "future in the past" combined with hypothetical statements in reportedspeech can lead to ambiguity in Italian where there is none in English:

(Luigi is thinking about the past with regret)He thought that if he had married Sara they would have been very happy togetherPensò che se l'avesse sposata sarebbero stati molto felici insieme

In English there is no ambiguity: he didn't marry her. Luigi is just regretting not doing something many years ago. Sara may even be dead.

But the Italian sentence can also mean that Luigi is pondering whether he should marry Sara now, i.e. he was thinking that if he married Sara they would be very happy together

To avoid ambiguity we would have to add a time phrase to the first sentence: ...che se l'avesse sposata tanti anni fa...

Now, if this thread had been nipped in the bud as a request for help with homework would we ever have had the opportunity to explore all these nuances?

EDIT: To avoid confusion, I'd like to stress that I highlighted in reported speech because if we use direct speech then we are free to use the present conditional or the past conditional and differentiate the two meanings:

Maybe I can clarify the difference between the two languages thus: in Italian we cannot differentiate between he said he would tell her and he said he would have told her(if she had not walked out in a huff) simply because we must use the past conditional (che glielo avrebbe detto) in both examples.

Va bene - capisco - alla fine!I am glad to have this explained as I was really worried about it!

Now here's an example that shows how our inability to differentiate between would and would have (present vs past conditional) in the "future in the past" combined with hypothetical statements in reportedspeech can lead to ambiguity in Italian where there is none in English:

(Luigi is thinking about the past with regret)He thought that if he had married Sara they would have been very happy togetherPensò che se l'avesse sposata sarebbero stati molto felici insieme

In English there is no ambiguity: he didn't marry her. Luigi is just regretting not doing something many years ago. Sara may even be dead.

But the Italian sentence can also mean that Luigi is pondering whether he should marry Sara now, i.e. he was thinking that if he married Sara they would be very happy together

To avoid ambiguity we would have to add a time phrase to the first sentence: ...che se l'avesse sposata tanti anni fa...

Now, if this thread had been nipped in the bud as a request for help with homework would we ever have had the opportunity to explore all these nuances?

EDIT: To avoid confusion, I'd like to stress that I highlighted in reported speech because if we use direct speech then we are free to use the present conditional or the past conditional and differentiate the two meanings:

What a great informative reply. You told me everything I needed to know. In fact I just now found examples of the latter two examples (given above) in my Grammar book Soluzioni! where the subjunctive is used with the conditional after "se". Thanks so much!

Indirect: She said if she had had any money she would have bought me a drink or she said if she had any money she would buy...

If the two indirect sentences are indeed interchangeable, as the usage guide states unequivocally, then my previous Luigi/Sara examples are wrong.

Any input?

Click to expand...

Not interchangeable to me.
1. I hear, "She said if she had had any money she would have bought me a drink," and I think, but she didn't have money so she didn't buy me a drink.
2. I hear, "She said if she had any money she would buy me a drink," and I think, and when I see her she'll let me know if she does have money and can buy me a drink.

You raised some valid and interesting points about equivalence of present and past forms of conditional statements in Italian. I take it that having said that the past conditional in Italian is ambiguous, you suggest (from referring to Practical English Usage) that the same may be true for English as well (in reported speech).

I’ve thought about this over the last few hours and have come to realise that language is really so complex and defies easy categorisation! Anyway, my opinion on the issue you raised would be both yes and no – it depends.

I do agree with the slant given by Isp re “when we meet”. It does depend on the time frame the speaker is referring to. But to take the simplest case, for your example, “she said if she had any money she would buy me a drink” this is true. There is in effect no real difference for reported speech. This happens because of the word “said”, which “compresses” the past retrospectively. When using direct speech there is a difference because one is dealing with the moment of thought (I would buy you a drink – it’s open ended) and the other with a moment just completed or resolved (I would have bought you a drink – it’s now closed). In reported speech the distinction between the two blurs due to both being in the past and therefore now closed.

For either direct or reported speech you can even use a hybrid form– “She said if she had any money she would have bought me a drink.” If the hybrid is used it is also equivalent to the standard reported form.If I had any money I would have bought = If I’d had any money I would have bought

I believe this equivalence is due to the dependent conditional clause dominating the sentence, whereas the independent subjunctive clause (If I had) is vague or more freeform. I’m not an English guru, but I suggest this might have occurred due to a drift in expressing subjunctive mood. Although a subjunctive conjugation has almost vanished in English now, the mood itself still exists, but it represented by several forms viz.If I had = Had I = Were I to have (present subjunctive)

If I’d had = Had I had = Were I to have had (past subjunctive)

If I’d had (past subjunctive) can be substituted with If I had (present subjunctive) if the former is being used to describe a very recent past moment in time (eg the party is breaking up and the participants are about to leave or have just left the pub). Not enough time has elapsed for the condition of “not having enough money” to have changed, so the present subjunctive is applied to the just completed past as well. However later, when a longer time has elapsed it is better to say If I’d had because the status of my cash-in-hand may well be different.

Now consider the following sentences,

1. She eyed the journalist across the table and thought blithely that if she had the money she would buy him a drink.

2. She eyed the journalist across the table and thought blithely that if she’d had the money she would have bought him a drink.

Although this example is similar to the one above the two sentences convey a subtle but distinct difference in meaning. This is because it is not reported speech, but 3rd person narrative. There is a greater sense of immediacy here, as if we are in the mind of the woman, and so the open-ended vs. closed distinction is preserved, just as in direct speech.

Now I’ll just add one more comment to the Romeo/Juliet discussion, then I’ll stop! The sentence “He gave her a potion that would put her to sleep” is different from the examples above because the qualifying clause is not conditional and the main clause is not subjunctive. There is a definite cause and effect with no doubt involved. So in this case the adjectival clause that would put her to sleep is purely future in the past. It is interesting to me that Italian uses the conditional form for this. Thanks again for pointing that out.

This is impeccable on every count Andy - knowledge, reasoning, expression, and it's throrough (maybe a bit more on the earlier now point, to have been clear). Very impressive. It even caused me to print off and think over.

For a while there, it seemed as if Romeo and Juliet might be in grave danger of confusion with Much Ado About Nothing.

As a small addition, this is also relevant. It crept in over the course of the thread, unremarked -

Moody when you see the present tense being used in the manner you describe, this is largely because it is consistent with DIRECTION - directing the play, etc, in other words.

Uinni whatever impression you may have obtained from the forum here, there is no difficultywith/aversion to the future in the past in English. Each of your examples are acceptable, although the preposition would be 'for', not 'to' in your latter two.

Moody when you see the present tense being used in the manner you describe, this is largely because it is consistent with DIRECTION - directing the play, etc, in other words.

Click to expand...

Hi Auno

Your explanation suggests that the present tense is only used in summarizing the storyline of a play or movie. However the tense is also used when describing the plot of a novel or the story in a narrative poem:

Young Copperfield is sent to school...where he is bullied by the tyrannical headmaster

The monster Grendel enters the hall at night and carries off...

(Oxford Companion to English Literature)

So I wouldn't say the use of the present is related to directing (although of course directing instructions also use the present) but rather that it is used whenever a fictional story is being summarized.

By the way, in Italian we often use the present in historical accounts - it makes for a more dramatic effect:

"A special exception is the use of the present in stage directions...
Here the present is used by convention, as if to represent the idea that the events of the play are being performed before our eyes as we read the script. A similar convention is used in summaries of narratives"(A ComprehensiveGrammar of the English Lanuage, Longman)

On a different note, it's nice to see that the Aussie contingent at IE has recently grown considerably. Apart from Charles, who has for a long time had to carry the burden of acting as our only AustrE consultant, we now have Giacinta, Gemelle, Auno and Andysi (am I forgetting anyone?).

Could it be the Aussies now outnumber the poms? Still no Kiwis, though.

I agree that when the thread-opener submits a text the forer@ should attempt a translation him/herself first - except, of course, when someone openly states "I can't speak Italian at all. Could you please translate this sentence/phrase I intend to use for a tattoo?"

However in this case Giulia had translated the whole sentence except for the "future in the past" verb, which she clearly had no clue how to render in English.

A further point to be made is that we are all learners here. The first/second/third etc translation offered has often proved to be incorrect because of L2 interference. This is exactly what happened with usa_scott's translation, which, thanks to the wrong tense he used, paved the way for a fruitful discussion.
In a way, the more incorrect/misleading translations are submitted the better, since they highlight differences between the two languages (the L2 interference I have to deal with at school every day ) we may not have noticed before or which are not covered in textbooks, even advanced ones (see the "mica" thread, where the translations provided helped me appreciate a nuance in my own language which I had not noticed even after teaching English to Italians and thus constantly comparing the two languages for 15 years).

I, too, still have doubts about the "future in the past". Practical English Usage claims that there is sometimes no difference between using would vs would have in reported speech :

Direct: If I had any money I'd buy you a drink

Indirect: She said if she had had any money she would have bought me a drink or she said if she had any money she would buy...

If the two indirect sentences are indeed interchangeable, as the usage guide states unequivocally, then my previous Luigi/Sara examples are wrong.

If your primary aim is to keep future-in-the-past structure which, in context, serves no good purpose whatsoever, then go right ahead.

If, however, an appropriate way of communicating in English is desirable, you'd want it the way I put it.

(Obviously the latter was/is desired.)

;-)

Click to expand...

By "the way I put it," do you mean your translation...

usa_scott said:

He gave her a potion which made her sleep for two days

Click to expand...

I assume you agree that this is not the correct translation. Or if you think it is correct, you at least agree that it's not the literal translation, right? The literal & correct translation would be, "He gave her a potion which would make her sleep for two days." I hope you will agree that this is at least the literal translation, especially in light of the native Italians' corroboration. And to persuade you that it's the correct translation, I refer you to my post #38 to see the differences in meaning among all the possibilities, particularly these two. And finally, if you agree that the two English translations are in fact different, then you must opt for the literal translation. Plus, if the Italian were seeking the meaning you propose, why not just say "...che l'ha fatta dormire due giorni" = "...which made her sleep for two days"?